Skip to navigation Skip to content

Gathering and assessing evidence for a job seeker compliance investigation 001-10040130

This page contains examples of how evidence is weighted and links to useful information about the role of evidence in decision making.

Types of evidence for job seeker compliance investigations

Table 1

Item	Evidence type
1	Reported compliance action The reported compliance action is the starting point for all compliance investigations and must always be considered. Compliance actions generated by Services Australia or by an Employment Services Provider are a primary source of evidence. The provider report submitted by an Employment Service Provider includes details of the job seekers non-compliance, including: the incident date notification, and any other relevant information The provider report is accessed via a link within the Compliance Investigation workflow. Relevant information from the provider report is also displayed on the appropriate pages within the workflow. Additional information from the Employment Services System (ESS) can be accessed using the links within the Compliance Investigation workflow, This includes: Job/Participation Plan Provider Recorded Information Online Diary, and the job seeker's calendar for TCF compliance actions
2	Job seeker's statement A job seeker's statement is a primary source of evidence and must always be considered. Compliance actions must not be applied without giving the job seeker a chance to explain: the reasons for not meeting their mutual obligation requirements, and whether prior contact occurred (if required) In most cases, this evidence can be collected verbally. A concise and accurate summary of the conversation must be recorded in the Compliance Investigation workflow. Any additional evidence the job seeker is willing to provide to support their statement should also be recorded. Always encourage the job seeker to supply any additional supporting evidence. When collecting a job seeker's statement, lead the discussion using: open questions to encourage the job seeker to give their reasons and explain any circumstances they believe stopped them from complying specific questions where clarification is needed strong call-handling skills to keep the conversation on track. Remain focused on the compliance action under investigation
3	Evidence relating to mutual obligation failure investigations Whilst a mutual obligation failure cannot be held pending the supply of evidence, the job seeker's supporting evidence may be relevant if they: request an explanation, or apply for a formal review of the decision once their evidence is lodged
4	Job seeker record The job seeker or participant's Services Australia record should be used to gain insight into their circumstances. Information available on the record can be used as evidence, or when considering other evidence relevant to the compliance action. The below is not a complete list, however, it can be used as a guide to locate additional or supporting evidence for job seeker compliance investigations. Information or evidence may be available within: the Participation Compliance hub, displaying recent non-compliance action including a Capability Assessment or Comprehensive Compliance Assessment (CCA) within the Participation Compliance a job seekers Address History (ADH) an Employment Services Assessment (ESAt) report. For more information see Employment Services Assessment (ESAt) overview Activity and exemption summary (AEX) screen, which will display recent activities and exemptions granted Circumstances impacting compliance workflow, which can provide insights to a job seekers circumstances. For more information, see Circumstances impacting capacity to comply with compulsory requirements Medical condition summary (MCSS) screen, which displays information about a job seeker or participants medical conditions/certificates submitted. For more information, see Assessing and coding medical certificates for temporary incapacity exemption Document List/Notes regarding recent urgent payment requests, if an exemption from mutual obligation requirements has been requested/granted, social work contact etc. Earnings (EAPP) screen displays declared hours worked and employment income in a period. For more information, see Recording and correcting employment income details Documents. For more information, see Viewing Centrelink customers' digital images
5	Job seeker circumstances impacting compliance Information known about a job seeker 's circumstances and how the circumstances impacted on their ability to comply, can play an important part in making a compliance decision. When a job seeker is claiming an ongoing or intermittent circumstance is directly causing non-compliance, review the Circumstances Impacting Compliance. Where a circumstance impacting compliance exists and has been previously assessed, this can be used as evidence for the compliance investigation. This is particularly useful where the job seeker is stating a known circumstance has worsened. For more information, see Circumstances impacting job seeker compliance. If a job seeker's circumstances impacting compliance are not recorded, or there is insufficient information/evidence for the purposes of a compliance investigation, it must be gathered and documented during the investigation. Information recorded or updated regarding a circumstance forms part of the evidence to be used in the investigation. It can be viewed later as part of the completed summary for the compliance investigation.
6	Job seeker behaviour Non-verbal cues identified during contact with the job seeker can be considered as evidence when it is relevant to the compliance action. For example, advice about the job seeker's presentation, engagement in discussion, tone, or perceived interest in complying with their compulsory requirements may help inform the decision outcome. This type of evidence is only recorded when it is relevant to the compliance action under investigation. The information must be written impartially, based on fact, and linked to the compliance action. All information recorded in the compliance investigation is subject to Freedom of Information (FOI) provisions.
7	Contact with provider When there are differences between the provider report and the job seeker's statement that will influence the decision, additional information/evidence may need to be collected. The provider should be contacted during the initial contact with job seeker. Contacting the provider is an effective way to verify a single version of events and ensures all facts are considered in the investigation. When recording verbal statements from the provider as evidence, all relevant information and details of who was contacted as a source of evidence must be recorded. When attempts to contact the provider by phone have been unsuccessful: Targeted Compliance Framework decisions are made based on the available information Job Seeker Compliance Framework reports should be returned to the provider. Use an appropriate 'returned report' rejection reason on the Decision and Penalty page in the Compliance Investigation workflow. Specific information must be recorded in the free text so the provider understands what information requires further clarification
8	Third party evidence In general, third party contacts are additional evidence. Contact with third parties is an effective way to clarify discrepancies, confirm statements and help to confirm a single version of events. Third party contacts may include: a previous employer to gather information leading to: unemployment due to misconduct, or voluntarily ceasing suitable employment youth workers medical professionals A third party contact: is only required if it is likely to influence the decision should be attempted as part of the initial job seeker contact, and must be considered along with all other evidence
9	Participation Solutions Team (PST) Virtual Support, social worker or specialists Consults with PST Virtual Support, a PST-skilled social worker or specialists can assist confirming the facts and/or in assessing the evidence. Examples of a Services Australia specialist consult could be contact with: PST Virtual Support a PST-skilled social worker, or a Multicultural Services Officer (MSO) Consults with these officers can assist with identifying how a job seekers circumstances impacted their capacity to comply with a requirement or to make prior contact. This contact is recorded on the Circumstances Impacting Compliance screen. Where possible, consults with specialist staff should occur while the job seeker is on the phone. This allows for: follow up questions to be asked quicker decision making, and appropriate interventions to be applied to support job seekers as needed Additional written evidence to verify advice given by a Services Australia social worker in relation to making a compliance decision, does not need to be sourced. Social workers will update the job seekers record where appropriate. For information on when a PST-skilled social worker consult may be required or appropriate, see Accessing a PST-skilled social worker.
10	Employment Services Assessment (ESAt) The Report Assessment Summary of certain ESAts, includes a 'risk of non-compliance' rating. It details specific vulnerabilities and barriers a job seeker has that may impact their ability to comply. This information may be used to inform a compliance decision. Compliance actions managed under the Job Seeker Compliance Framework and Targeted Compliance Framework unemployment or work refusal failure decisions, can be held pending the outcome of an ESAt, if the assessment will influence the decision. For further information, see Request an Employment Services Assessment (ESAt).

Assessing evidence scenarios

Table 2

Item	Scenario
1	Job seeker working at the time of the appointment The job seeker states they were working at the time of the appointment and they called the provider to advise they could not attend. When asked, the job seeker immediately provides the name of the employment consultant they spoke to, including the date and the approximate time of the call. Evidence within the provider report indicates the job seeker failed to contact the provider. To confirm the job seeker's statement, contact is made with the provider. The provider advises there was a power outage at the time and they think the job seeker called as they have been very compliant since entering the penalty zone. The power outage also explains why the job seeker's record was not updated at the time of their call. Points to Consider: EAPP screen and the Hours for One Period (HOP) field confirms the job seeker declared 30 hours of work for the fortnight. The EAPP screen also displays a history of declared income for the same employer The job seeker entered into the penalty zone 2 months ago, and since then they have been fully compliant provider notes show previous contacts to reschedule appointments due to job seeker advising they will be working, but not for this compliance event Outcome: Job seeker statement and information from the provider is used to determine what is more likely to have occurred The outcome is based on the: job seeker's manner and engagement during the investigation verified hours of work on the job seeker's record previous declaration of earnings verified job seeker's history of contacting to notify of non-attendance in the past The evidence gathered, including the job seeker's statement, information on the EAPP screen and the provider statement, all contribute to build a picture of what is more likely to have occurred on the incident date. Using this evidence, there is no reason to doubt the job seeker's statement. All evidence and how it was used to form the decision is documented.
2	Work refusal failure During the job seeker's initial contact with the Participation Solutions Team (PST) to discuss a work refusal failure, the job seeker advised they: had another job offer at the same time that pays more than the refused job, and would be able to provide evidence from the employer to support their statements PST attempted contact with the potential employer, however this was unsuccessful. Points to Consider: PST negotiated a 2 day timeframe with the job seeker to provide evidence that they had been offered an alternate job and the start date At the next PST contact with the job seeker they advise the job offer fell through Outcome: Job Seeker statement not accepted, additional evidence was not available to establish reasonable excuse The decision is based on: the job seeker failing to provide the evidence of the job offer and start date as previously agreed, and any evidence the job offer fell through The decision about the compliance action was made, based on the available evidence. Although the job seeker thought another job was on offer at the time, the job seeker is required to accept any suitable employment. The decision maker's explanation of the decision outlined that a reasonable excuse has not been established. The job seeker was unable to verify their statement that they received another offer of employment.
3	Non-attendance at Work for the Dole A Workforce Australia job seeker advised they did not go to Work for the Dole (WFD) because they were in court on that day. The job seeker states they told their provider a week before they would not be able to attend due to court commitments. Note: WFD is a compulsory activity when a job seeker reaches their Mandatory Activation Point. Points to consider: The report from the provider noted an ongoing legal case and court attendance as a known circumstance that may impact the job seeker's ability to comply. However, the job seeker's WFD requirements had been arranged around their court dates The Workforce Australia provider noted the job seeker: did not advise of their inability to attend on the incident date, and had not recorded a Personal Event for that day in the Online Calendar on their Homepage The provider was contacted and they confirmed the job seeker: contacted the week prior to advise they would be in court on the following Tuesday, and agreed to change the requirement to attend WFD from Tuesday that week to Thursday in the same week did not record a Personal Event for Tuesday, and had not made any further contact Discussing the agreed change to their WFD days, the job seeker stated they thought they would be making up this time the following week and not the Thursday of the week they had to attend court Outcome: Job Seeker statement not accepted The decision is based on: the discussion with the provider that a new agreed time for the job seeker to attend WFD was negotiated. The PST staff member was not satisfied the job seeker had a reasonable excuse for non-attendance at WFD Greater weight was given to the provider's evidence as their notes were well documented. This included their negotiation with the job seeker that they would make up their WFD hours on the Thursday following their Tuesday court attendance. The provider's evidence is fully substantiated. Although some facts of the job seeker's statement are correct, it did not include the fact they agreed to make up the WFD hours on the Thursday.
4	Mutual obligation failure A Workforce Australia job seeker has failed to meet their points target, resulting in the generation of a mutual obligation failure. The job seeker advised they had a sudden severe onset of a previously known medical condition that impacted their ability to meet their requirements. The medical condition prevented the job seeker from achieving their points target, it also impacted their ability to contact the provider prior to the points due date because they had been hospitalised. The job seeker: contacted the provider as soon as they were out of hospital to advise, and uploaded a medical certificate via their myGov App which covers the incident date of the mutual obligation failure Points to Consider: A review of the job seeker's record indicates: no previous medical exemption has been granted their Circumstances Impacting Compliance confirms the medical condition, however there is no evidence to support how the circumstance impacted on the job seeker's ability to meet their requirements the job seeker's compliance history shows periods of non-compliance as well as periods of meeting their mutual obligation requirements the uploaded medical certificate meets the provisions for a temporary medical exemption to be granted the job seeker called the provider as soon as they were able to as per provider comments Outcome: Job Seeker statement accepted The decision is based on: the job seeker: attempted to comply by contacting their provider as soon as they were able uploaded a Centrelink medical certificate that covers the period of hospitalisation and incident date of the mutual obligation failure statement is supported by the Circumstances Impacting Compliance There is enough evidence on the job seeker's record which aligns to the job seeker statement. Credibility is able to be given to the job seeker's version of events. This gives sufficient weight to use discretion in the rejection of the failure.
5	CDP participant working at the time of the appointment A Community Development Program (CDP) participant states they were working at the time of their appointment and they called their provider to advise they could not attend. When asked, the participant provides the name of the person they spoke to, including the date and the approximate time of the call. The provider report states the participant made no contact. To resolve the conflicting evidence contact is made with the provider. The provider advises they have a new employee who was taking phone calls from participants this week, however the participants name has not been recorded as making contact. When the consultant checks the participant's details they note that the participant is usually very compliant. To date, they have contacted every time they have not been able to attend, so this is unusual. Points to consider: The EAPP screen and the Hours for One Period (HOP) field confirms the participant declared 30 hours of work for the fortnight. The EAPP screen also displays a history of declared income for the same employer There are minimal instances of non-compliance on the Participation Compliance Summary, indicating they have a good history of attending appointments and complying with requirements The provider recorded information shows previous contacts to reschedule appointments due to the participant's employment The participant is genuinely upset an investigation is taking place, especially as this is first time they have had contact with PST Outcome: Job seeker statement accepted The decision is based on: job seeker's manner and engagement during the investigation verified hours of work on the job seeker's record previous declaration of earnings verified job seeker's past history of making contact to notify of their inability to attend The evidence gathered, including the job seekers statement, information on the EAPP screen and provider statement, all contribute to build a picture of what likely occurred on the incident date. There is no reason to doubt the job seeker's statement. All evidence and how it was used to form the decision is documented.